UIFSA / Interstate Modification Question

With regard to one state modifying another state's CS order, UIFSA
611(c) states:

"A tribunal of this State may not modify any aspect of a child-support
order that may not be modified under the law of the issuing State."

In the comments, the example given to illustrate this provision is
this:

"Subsection (b) states that if the forum has modification jurisdiction
because the issuing State has lost continuing, exclusive jurisdiction,
the proceedings will generally follow local law with regard to
modification of child support orders. However, subsection (c) prevents
the modification of any final, nonmodifiable aspect of the original
order. For example, if child support was ordered through age 21 in
accordance with the law of the issuing State and the law of the forum
State ends the support obligation at 18, modification by the forum
tribunal may not affect the duration of the support order to age 21."

My question is, how does one differentiate between a "modifiable
aspect" of the original order from a "final non-modifiable" aspect of
the original order?

My ex is trying for a modification in our new state (basically asking
for more per month, plus add-ons for private school, therapist visits,
etc.), and I'm trying to figure out which modifications I can object
to under UIFSA. Our original state was Texas, new state is
California.

Thanks.

wrote
With regard to one state modifying another state's CS order, UIFSA
611(c) states:

"A tribunal of this State may not modify any aspect of a child-support
order that may not be modified under the law of the issuing State."

In the comments, the example given to illustrate this provision is
this:

"Subsection (b) states that if the forum has modification jurisdiction
because the issuing State has lost continuing, exclusive jurisdiction,
the proceedings will generally follow local law with regard to
modification of child support orders. However, subsection (c) prevents
the modification of any final, nonmodifiable aspect of the original
order. For example, if child support was ordered through age 21 in
accordance with the law of the issuing State and the law of the forum
State ends the support obligation at 18, modification by the forum
tribunal may not affect the duration of the support order to age 21."

My question is, how does one differentiate between a "modifiable
aspect" of the original order from a "final non-modifiable" aspect of
the original order?
==
You must research Texas statute to find modifiable aspects of the order. If
it isn't
modifiable under TX law, CA cannot modify it. If TX law permits private
school tuition
and/or therapist visits as add-ons to its guidelines, CA can add them. If
they can't be added on
(for instace, if they are included already in the guideline amount) CA
cannot add them on.
Find out if judges have the discretion to add these things on in TX or if
they are specifically
permitted or disallowed under TX statute.

On Aug 2, 10:16 am, "Gini" wrote:
wrote

With regard to one state modifying another state's CS order, UIFSA
611(c) states:

"A tribunal of this State may not modify any aspect of a child-support
order that may not be modified under the law of the issuing State."

In the comments, the example given to illustrate this provision is
this:

"Subsection (b) states that if the forum has modification jurisdiction
because the issuing State has lost continuing, exclusive jurisdiction,
the proceedings will generally follow local law with regard to
modification of child support orders. However, subsection (c) prevents
the modification of any final, nonmodifiable aspect of the original
order. For example, if child support was ordered through age 21 in
accordance with the law of the issuing State and the law of the forum
State ends the support obligation at 18, modification by the forum
tribunal may not affect the duration of the support order to age 21."

My question is, how does one differentiate between a "modifiable
aspect" of the original order from a "final non-modifiable" aspect of
the original order?

==
You must research Texas statute to find modifiable aspects of the order. If
it isn't
modifiable under TX law, CA cannot modify it. If TX law permits private
school tuition
and/or therapist visits as add-ons to its guidelines, CA can add them. If
they can't be added on
(for instace, if they are included already in the guideline amount) CA
cannot add them on.
Find out if judges have the discretion to add these things on in TX or if
they are specifically
permitted or disallowed under TX statute.


My quick scan of the TX family code did find a section that says that
the court can deviate from the child support guidelines after
considering evidence in a number of areas, and "educational needs" and
"uninsured medical expense" are both listed.

But what about the basic guideline formula? UIFSA seems to suggest
that the new state must use the guideline formula from the original
state. Is the formula used in the original state a "non-modifiable
aspect" of the original state's order? I guess that's my question
now. TX is 20% of CP's Net income, while CA uses a complex income
shares formula. Does UIFSA mandate that CA must continue to use the
TX guideline because it is a "nonmodifiable aspect" of the original
order?

wrote
...................


My quick scan of the TX family code did find a section that says that
the court can deviate from the child support guidelines after
considering evidence in a number of areas, and "educational needs" and
"uninsured medical expense" are both listed.

But what about the basic guideline formula? UIFSA seems to suggest
that the new state must use the guideline formula from the original
state. Is the formula used in the original state a "non-modifiable
aspect" of the original state's order? I guess that's my question
now. TX is 20% of CP's Net income, while CA uses a complex income
shares formula. Does UIFSA mandate that CA must continue to use the
TX guideline because it is a "nonmodifiable aspect" of the original
order?
==
Yes. The order will be according to TX guidelines (20% of net).
I'm not sure private school tuition is an educational *need* unless
the child is a special needs child. BTW, you need much more than a "quick
scan" of
the guidelines; you need to know it backward and forward and upside down.

On Aug 2, 1:50 pm, wrote:
On Aug 2, 10:16 am, "Gini" wrote:



wrote

With regard to one state modifying another state's CS order, UIFSA
611(c) states:

"A tribunal of this State may not modify any aspect of a child-support
order that may not be modified under the law of the issuing State."

In the comments, the example given to illustrate this provision is
this:

"Subsection (b) states that if the forum has modification jurisdiction
because the issuing State has lost continuing, exclusive jurisdiction,
the proceedings will generally follow local law with regard to
modification of child support orders. However, subsection (c) prevents
the modification of any final, nonmodifiable aspect of the original
order. For example, if child support was ordered through age 21 in
accordance with the law of the issuing State and the law of the forum
State ends the support obligation at 18, modification by the forum
tribunal may not affect the duration of the support order to age 21."

My question is, how does one differentiate between a "modifiable
aspect" of the original order from a "final non-modifiable" aspect of
the original order?

==
You must research Texas statute to find modifiable aspects of the order. If
it isn't
modifiable under TX law, CA cannot modify it. If TX law permits private
school tuition
and/or therapist visits as add-ons to its guidelines, CA can add them. If
they can't be added on
(for instace, if they are included already in the guideline amount) CA
cannot add them on.
Find out if judges have the discretion to add these things on in TX or if
they are specifically
permitted or disallowed under TX statute.

My quick scan of the TX family code did find a section that says that
the court can deviate from the child support guidelines after
considering evidence in a number of areas, and "educational needs" and
"uninsured medical expense" are both listed.

But what about the basic guideline formula? UIFSA seems to suggest
that the new state must use the guideline formula from the original
state. Is the formula used in the original state a "non-modifiable
aspect" of the original state's order? I guess that's my question
now. TX is 20% of CP's Net income, while CA uses a complex income
shares formula. Does UIFSA mandate that CA must continue to use the
TX guideline because it is a "nonmodifiable aspect" of the original
order?

Most states have some wording that the guidelines are just that. I.E.
the judge should use that as a starting point but then lol...do
whatever the hell they feel like although hopefully they will come up
with at least some flimsy reason.

So first you need to see if TX has the same weasel wording as e.g.
Massachusetts does. Which I think probably they do. Then you have to
see what main things TX uses to adjust the guidelines up or down and
why. With some luck you may be able to get the CA judge to use the TX
numbers and then adjust them for therapist bills or schooling. If they
try to impose the CA income shares formula then I would push hard on
that one (appeal). They probably won't go that far, but I'd be
prepared if they did.

Don

On Aug 2, 11:53 am, "Gini" wrote:
wrote
..................

My quick scan of the TX family code did find a section that says that
the court can deviate from the child support guidelines after
considering evidence in a number of areas, and "educational needs" and
"uninsured medical expense" are both listed.

But what about the basic guideline formula? UIFSA seems to suggest
that the new state must use the guideline formula from the original
state. Is the formula used in the original state a "non-modifiable
aspect" of the original state's order? I guess that's my question
now. TX is 20% of CP's Net income, while CA uses a complex income
shares formula. Does UIFSA mandate that CA must continue to use the
TX guideline because it is a "nonmodifiable aspect" of the original
order?

==
Yes. The order will be according to TX guidelines (20% of net).
I'm not sure private school tuition is an educational *need* unless
the child is a special needs child. BTW, you need much more than a "quick
scan" of
the guidelines; you need to know it backward and forward and upside down.

You're right, I'm going to print them out now and start studying. I
just wanted to make sure that before I invested that time and effort,
there would be at least some grounds for requesting that California
stick with the Texas/original guidelines. I expect a fight on this --
I don't think judges like to be told that they need to stick to the
laws and guidelines of another state when they're more familiar with
their own state's code.

On Aug 2, 11:54 am, don_1228 wrote:
On Aug 2, 1:50 pm, wrote:



On Aug 2, 10:16 am, "Gini" wrote:

wrote

With regard to one state modifying another state's CS order, UIFSA
611(c) states:

"A tribunal of this State may not modify any aspect of a child-support
order that may not be modified under the law of the issuing State."

In the comments, the example given to illustrate this provision is
this:

"Subsection (b) states that if the forum has modification jurisdiction
because the issuing State has lost continuing, exclusive jurisdiction,
the proceedings will generally follow local law with regard to
modification of child support orders. However, subsection (c) prevents
the modification of any final, nonmodifiable aspect of the original
order. For example, if child support was ordered through age 21 in
accordance with the law of the issuing State and the law of the forum
State ends the support obligation at 18, modification by the forum
tribunal may not affect the duration of the support order to age 21."

My question is, how does one differentiate between a "modifiable
aspect" of the original order from a "final non-modifiable" aspect of
the original order?

==
You must research Texas statute to find modifiable aspects of the order. If
it isn't
modifiable under TX law, CA cannot modify it. If TX law permits private
school tuition
and/or therapist visits as add-ons to its guidelines, CA can add them. If
they can't be added on
(for instace, if they are included already in the guideline amount) CA
cannot add them on.
Find out if judges have the discretion to add these things on in TX or if
they are specifically
permitted or disallowed under TX statute.

My quick scan of the TX family code did find a section that says that
the court can deviate from the child support guidelines after
considering evidence in a number of areas, and "educational needs" and
"uninsured medical expense" are both listed.

But what about the basic guideline formula? UIFSA seems to suggest
that the new state must use the guideline formula from the original
state. Is the formula used in the original state a "non-modifiable
aspect" of the original state's order? I guess that's my question
now. TX is 20% of CP's Net income, while CA uses a complex income
shares formula. Does UIFSA mandate that CA must continue to use the
TX guideline because it is a "nonmodifiable aspect" of the original
order?

Most states have some wording that the guidelines are just that. I.E.
the judge should use that as a starting point but then lol...do
whatever the hell they feel like although hopefully they will come up
with at least some flimsy reason.

So first you need to see if TX has the same weasel wording as e.g.
Massachusetts does. Which I think probably they do. Then you have to
see what main things TX uses to adjust the guidelines up or down and
why. With some luck you may be able to get the CA judge to use the TX
numbers and then adjust them for therapist bills or schooling. If they
try to impose the CA income shares formula then I would push hard on
that one (appeal). They probably won't go that far, but I'd be
prepared if they did.

Don

The TX code does have the weasel wording. But I full expect CA to try
to impose their guidelines rather than use the Texas guidelines. I
suppose my task will be to figure out which guidelines are more
favorable -- for my child's situation of course -- and decide whether
to apply UIFSA or not to get those guidelines used as the basis for
any modification that takes place here in CA.

On Aug 2, 11:54 am, don_1228 wrote:
On Aug 2, 1:50 pm, wrote:



On Aug 2, 10:16 am, "Gini" wrote:

wrote

With regard to one state modifying another state's CS order, UIFSA
611(c) states:

"A tribunal of this State may not modify any aspect of a child-support
order that may not be modified under the law of the issuing State."

In the comments, the example given to illustrate this provision is
this:

"Subsection (b) states that if the forum has modification jurisdiction
because the issuing State has lost continuing, exclusive jurisdiction,
the proceedings will generally follow local law with regard to
modification of child support orders. However, subsection (c) prevents
the modification of any final, nonmodifiable aspect of the original
order. For example, if child support was ordered through age 21 in
accordance with the law of the issuing State and the law of the forum
State ends the support obligation at 18, modification by the forum
tribunal may not affect the duration of the support order to age 21."

My question is, how does one differentiate between a "modifiable
aspect" of the original order from a "final non-modifiable" aspect of
the original order?

==
You must research Texas statute to find modifiable aspects of the order. If
it isn't
modifiable under TX law, CA cannot modify it. If TX law permits private
school tuition
and/or therapist visits as add-ons to its guidelines, CA can add them. If
they can't be added on
(for instace, if they are included already in the guideline amount) CA
cannot add them on.
Find out if judges have the discretion to add these things on in TX or if
they are specifically
permitted or disallowed under TX statute.

My quick scan of the TX family code did find a section that says that
the court can deviate from the child support guidelines after
considering evidence in a number of areas, and "educational needs" and
"uninsured medical expense" are both listed.

But what about the basic guideline formula? UIFSA seems to suggest
that the new state must use the guideline formula from the original
state. Is the formula used in the original state a "non-modifiable
aspect" of the original state's order? I guess that's my question
now. TX is 20% of CP's Net income, while CA uses a complex income
shares formula. Does UIFSA mandate that CA must continue to use the
TX guideline because it is a "nonmodifiable aspect" of the original
order?

Most states have some wording that the guidelines are just that. I.E.
the judge should use that as a starting point but then lol...do
whatever the hell they feel like although hopefully they will come up
with at least some flimsy reason.

So first you need to see if TX has the same weasel wording as e.g.
Massachusetts does. Which I think probably they do. Then you have to
see what main things TX uses to adjust the guidelines up or down and
why. With some luck you may be able to get the CA judge to use the TX
numbers and then adjust them for therapist bills or schooling. If they
try to impose the CA income shares formula then I would push hard on
that one (appeal). They probably won't go that far, but I'd be
prepared if they did.

Don

After further research, it appears that the new state can apply their
own guidelines when modifying an order under UIFSA. There is
information about just this question here, particularly the paragraph
beginning "The court engaged in a rather expansive discussion of
section 611(c) of UIFSA..."

http://www.ancpr.org/nonmodifiable_a...of_a_child.htm

wrote in message
oups.com...
With regard to one state modifying another state's CS order, UIFSA
611(c) states:

"A tribunal of this State may not modify any aspect of a child-support
order that may not be modified under the law of the issuing State."

In the comments, the example given to illustrate this provision is
this:

"Subsection (b) states that if the forum has modification jurisdiction
because the issuing State has lost continuing, exclusive jurisdiction,
the proceedings will generally follow local law with regard to
modification of child support orders. However, subsection (c) prevents
the modification of any final, nonmodifiable aspect of the original
order. For example, if child support was ordered through age 21 in
accordance with the law of the issuing State and the law of the forum
State ends the support obligation at 18, modification by the forum
tribunal may not affect the duration of the support order to age 21."

My question is, how does one differentiate between a "modifiable
aspect" of the original order from a "final non-modifiable" aspect of
the original order?

My ex is trying for a modification in our new state (basically asking
for more per month, plus add-ons for private school, therapist visits,
etc.), and I'm trying to figure out which modifications I can object
to under UIFSA. Our original state was Texas, new state is
California.

If I have read your situation correctly, you are asking can a child's mother
who resides with the child in TX use the CA CS rules and guidelines to get a
modification. IOW - Can a mother shop around between the states for the
most favorable outcome?

I would say the answer lies in which state has jurisdiction to act. And
then the other state has the responsibility under the full faith and credit
clause of the Constitution to enforce the original states court order.
Residency in CA would have to be legally established, and the file
transferred from TX, in order for the CA courts to have jurisdiction.

On Aug 2, 1:53 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...



With regard to one state modifying another state's CS order, UIFSA
611(c) states:

"A tribunal of this State may not modify any aspect of a child-support
order that may not be modified under the law of the issuing State."

In the comments, the example given to illustrate this provision is
this:

"Subsection (b) states that if the forum has modification jurisdiction
because the issuing State has lost continuing, exclusive jurisdiction,
the proceedings will generally follow local law with regard to
modification of child support orders. However, subsection (c) prevents
the modification of any final, nonmodifiable aspect of the original
order. For example, if child support was ordered through age 21 in
accordance with the law of the issuing State and the law of the forum
State ends the support obligation at 18, modification by the forum
tribunal may not affect the duration of the support order to age 21."

My question is, how does one differentiate between a "modifiable
aspect" of the original order from a "final non-modifiable" aspect of
the original order?

My ex is trying for a modification in our new state (basically asking
for more per month, plus add-ons for private school, therapist visits,
etc.), and I'm trying to figure out which modifications I can object
to under UIFSA. Our original state was Texas, new state is
California.

If I have read your situation correctly, you are asking can a child's mother
who resides with the child in TX use the CA CS rules and guidelines to get a
modification. IOW - Can a mother shop around between the states for the
most favorable outcome?

I would say the answer lies in which state has jurisdiction to act. And
then the other state has the responsibility under the full faith and credit
clause of the Constitution to enforce the original states court order.
Residency in CA would have to be legally established, and the file
transferred from TX, in order for the CA courts to have jurisdiction.

No, sorry, that's not quite the situation. All parties are now in
CA. So, CA definitely has jurisdiction. Mother's requesting a
modification of the original TX order. I was trying to find out if
UIFSA requires that CA continue to use the TX CS guidelines when
calculating support amount, because UIFSA 611(c) seems to suggest that
this is the case (see original post).

The bulk of case precedent seems to indicate that when modifying
another states CS order in a new state, the CS guidelines in the new
state are applied, but certain "non-modifiable" elements of the
original order cannot be modified by the new state. I'm still not
exactly clear on which elements of an order are "modifiable" and which
are "non-modifiable," but the example given in almost every case is
the duration of the CS order. I.e, if the original state orders CS to
age 18, the new state cannot extend it to age 21.

Thanks.